Mayers v. Liberty Entertainment Group, 2012 HRTO 1375

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Steven Mayers

Applicant

-and-

Liberty Entertainment Group o/a 1273251 Ontario Ltd., Spice Route Asian Bistro and Bar o/a 1733346 Ontario Inc., and Ink Entertainment o/a 1672353 Ontario Inc.

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: David Muir Date: July 12, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1375 Indexed as: Mayers v. Liberty Entertainment Group

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Steven Mayers, Applicant

Self-represented

1This is an Application filed under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleging discrimination with respect to employment because of race, colour and age. The applicant alleges that he was not offered a position with the respondents because he is a young black man.

2Section 45 of the Code confirms the Tribunal’s authority to defer consideration of an application. Under Rule 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal may, on its own initiative, defer consideration of an application after providing notice of its intention to do so to all parties and giving them an opportunity to make submissions.

3On April 16, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Notice of Intent to Defer this Application (“NOID”) because the applicant had indicated in his Application that the facts and issues raised were also raised in a small claims court action against these respondents.

4The applicant provided his submissions opposing deferral. The applicant states that the issues he has raised are more appropriately dealt with by the Tribunal. The applicant also states that he has tried to settle this case with two of the respondents without success. Accordingly the applicant believes that the matter should proceed to a hearing. Finally the applicant believes that if the Tribunal investigates this case it can determine whether what occurred to him is an isolated incident or a systemic problem. In the applicant’s view the small claims court does not have the tools to conduct that kind of inquiry.

5The respondent did not respond to the NOID directly but filed a partial Response to the Application stating that the Application should be dismissed because the small claims court proceeding has dealt with the substance of the Application.

Decision

6Deferral of an application ensures that proceedings dealing with the same issues do not run concurrently, thereby raising the possibility of inconsistent decisions on facts or law. Deferral is not automatically invoked simply because the parties are involved in other legal proceedings.

7Some of the factors that may be relevant in deciding whether to defer consideration of an application before the Tribunal are the subject matter of the other proceeding, the nature of the other proceeding, the type of remedies available in the other proceeding, and whether it would be fair overall to the parties to defer, having regard to the status of each proceeding and the steps that have been taken to pursue them.

8In this case, the most significant factor is that the small claims court proceeding was commenced prior to this Application and is based on the identical facts.

9In these circumstance the Tribunal finds it appropriate to defer consideration of this Application pending the conclusion of the small claims court proceeding.

10The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the process by which the Application may be brought back on after the civil claim has been concluded.

11I am not seized of this case.